Better way than model-in-place family to show odd-shaped furniture

[HVAC-Novice]

For lighting project I'm modeling odd-shaped counters. All i really need is that thing to be a few  "thick and at the approximate height (i only need to know it is there). For rectangular things i have a generic furniture family I flex to represent the counters or other furniture. This is all just existing stuff and the project doesn't really do anything with it. 

Here they have these odd-shaped counters (or tables):

I ended up modeling in-place furniture families, wihch was the first time I used in-place modeling:

I know they are a big no-no (for resources etc.). They have a bunch of odd-shaped counters. 

so is there a better way to do that? 

I'm building the existing building in existing phase and that is where i place those pieces. that way they show up in the new construction phase.

My only other idea is to not place them in existing phase, and in the new construction phase just use annotations to trace those. I'm not sure I like that because it goes a bit against the Revit idea. but assuming lighting is the only trade here, may be an acceptable hack. One disadvantage is, annotations wouldn't automatically show up on the egress lighting plans and I would have to copy them to the egress lighting view. 

So yes, I have an idea how to do it. But if there is a better one, I like to improve. 

[barthbradley]

I'm not sure what the question is, but Model In-Place isn't a "big no-no".  In this case, it seems appropriate. Certainly, the easiest.   

BTW: Annotations are View-Specific Elements. They will only show up in Views that you deliberately place them in.  

[ToanDN]

If the 'odd shaped' counters are that consistent then you can use wall or railing.  If they are truly odd then yeas use in-place families.  

[HVAC-Novice]

By  "no-no " I meant they use more resources than just a loadable family used multiple times. and I learned, they clutter the family section in the project browser. But in my case with just a few, that likely isn't a big problem.

I know annotations are view-specific, which is why this isn't the best solution. i think next time a project requires something like that, I may play with annotations. For this one I leave as is with the in-place families. 

ToanDN's idea with walls (not room bounding) isn't bad and could work. Will try that next time as well. i also have to see how that all behaves with the lighting calcs or if that does weird things (like giving me a dark spot in the furniture I create out of lower walls).

Thanks to all. 

Edit: I guess a floor elevated could work as well. 

[ToanDN]

---

@HVAC-Novice wrote:

By  "no-no " I meant they use more resources than just a loadable family used multiple times. and I learned, they clutter the family section in the project browser. But in my case with just a few, that likely isn't a big problem.

---

Correct.  In place families only impact performance when you create one and copy it over and over because each copied instance is a new in place family.  Other than that it is a great tool.